Counter-Currents
The Laugh Test:
Multiculturalists Give Advice to Ethnonationalists
Greg Johnson
1,429 words
“Here’s my card.”
French translation here
On February 26th, 2011, The Guardian announced the results of a poll conducted by the Searchlight Institute in the UK:
Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.
A Populus poll found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to fly the flag of St George or the union flag.
Anti-racism campaigners said the findings suggested Britain’s mainstream parties were losing touch with public opinion on issues of identity and race.
The poll suggests that the level of backing for a far-right party could equal or even outstrip that in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Austria. France’s National Front party hopes to secure 20% in the first round of the presidential vote next year. The Dutch anti-Islam party led by Geert Wilders attracted 15.5% of the vote in last year’s parliamentary elections.
Anti-fascist groups said the poll’s findings challenged the belief that Britons were more tolerant than other Europeans. “This is not because British people are more moderate, but simply because their views have not found a political articulation,” said a report by the Searchlight Educational Trust, the anti-fascist charity that commissioned the poll.
. . . 63% of white Britons . . . agreed with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country”. Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that “Muslims create problems in the UK”.
Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP who fought a successful campaign against the British National party in his Dagenham and Rainham constituency in east London, said that the findings pointed to a “very real threat of a new potent political constituency built around an assertive English nationalism”. The report identified a resurgence of English identity, with 39% preferring to call themselves English rather than British. Just 5% labelled themselves European. The Guardian
On its surface this is good news. It indicates that 48% of Britons are just waiting for an excuse to vote for the British National Party, which has “mainstreamed” itself, distancing itself from its associations with neo-Nazis, fascists, and skinheads and diversifying itself with Sikhs and Jews. Of course, it also implies that the enemies of the BNP and their willing allies in the mainstream media will never cease reminding voters of these connections.
This brings to mind Kevin MacDonald’s recent talk, “Nationalist Strategies,” which focuses on Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Wilders has gone about as far as possible to construct a European nationalist party that stays within the boundaries of what MacDonald calls “the post-World War II consensus” about race, nationalism, and Jews.
As MacDonald points out, Wilders is perhaps the most philosemitic politician in Europe today (and sincerely so, judging from his marriage to a Jew). But still, Wilders has made barely a dent in Jewish opposition to Dutch nationalism. Indeed, fewer than 2% of Dutch Jews voted for Wilders’ Freedom Party in the last election.
But, as MacDonald points out, by staying within politically correct boundaries regarding race and the Jews, Wilders has gained the votes of Dutchmen who have awakened to the dangers of multiculturalism and immigration but who remain brainwashed about race and the Jewish Question.
All over Europe, there are strong winds of discontent over multiculturalism and immigration, and nationalist mainstreamers like Wilders are trimming their sails to catch them. It would be a good thing if these parties made some headway in ending multiculturalism and non-white immigration, just as it would be a good thing if the Tea Party made similar headway in the United States.
I’m a “let a thousand flowers bloom” kind of guy, and if this sort of stuff gets people who don’t know any better excited and involved and even leads to actual political change, I am certainly not one to dampen their enthusiasm. (I want them to keep their enthusiasm, but discover who their true friends and their true enemies really are.)
But White Nationalists should not lose sight of the fact that the goals of people like Wilders and the Tea Party fall far short of a white ethnostate. Furthermore, they would rebuff any overt association with us as a threat to their already shaky mainstream legitimacy.
The common denominator of nationalists like Wilders in Europe, the Tea Party in the US, and White Nationalist mainstreamers world-wide is that they wish to craft a message that stays within the boundaries of that post-World War II “consensus”: racial preservation and betterment (eugenics) are evil; the only legitimate goal is cultural preservation; since we are only concerned about culture, we hold open the possibility of cultural assimilation to people of all races; anything that smacks of fascism or National Socialism is anathema; and, of course, the ultimate evil is anti-Semitism, thus any form of European ethnic self-assertion must embrace the right of Jews to come and go and live where they please.
But that consensus is merely an artifact, a product of Jewish power. Thus my question to the mainstreamers is this: How do you propose to achieve white power without dislodging Jewish power? Because without Jewish power, white nations around the world would not have embraced multiculturalism and non-white immigration. And Jews don’t seem to be persuaded of the necessity of changing these policies. Thus I just don’t see any way of winning without identifying the organized Jewish community as the principal enemy and removing them from power.
The Searchlight poll also should be greeted with some skepticism. The Searchlight Institute is the UK equivalent of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Now if the New York Times announced that the SPLC, based on extensive public opinion polls, advised American White Nationalists that they could win the allegiance of 48% of the voters simply by renouncing violence and fascist symbols, how many White Nationalists would be dumb enough to take the bait without wondering if it conceals poison or a hook? (Their ranks have thinned recently, but I’d still wager that the number is depressingly large.)
What is the Searchlight’s agenda here? These people, of course, only tell the truth by accident, meaning that they only utter a truth if they see an ulterior angle in it. So none of their alleged facts should be taken at face value. Instead, they should be examined in light of how they advance the multiracialist agenda.
First of all, the Searchlight people are clearly worried about a real phenomenon: rising nationalist sentiment in the UK. Second, they wish to rally anti-racist forces to resist it. Third, they probably wish to scare up some funds from their donors. Fourth, they wish to do as much damage to their nationalist enemies as possible.
If I were the Searchlight Institute, I would craft my poll questions and massage my data to lead nationalists to conclude that doing something maximally dumb and self-destructive is the road to power. If the SPLC and the ADL were stupid enough to follow my advice, I would definitely advise them to do the most self-defeating thing that they could be persuaded to do.
What is the takeaway lesson of the Searchlight poll? Renounce violence and fascist symbolism and 48% of the vote will be yours. And in the UK, with its multiple parties, 48% of the vote means power.
The British National Party does, of course, have roots in National Socialism and the violent skinhead subculture. That is because National Socialists and skinheads saw the problems of multiculturalism and non-white immigration and were willing to fight them decades before the moderate, middle-class suburbanites who are now turning to the mainstreamed BNP.
Many of the most committed BNP Vanguardists were driven out or left in disgust when Nick Griffin embarked on mainstreaming the party. But some disinterested old fighters still remain. (When Griffin began his reforms, they just chose to close their eyes and think of England.)
Now the Searchlight is suggesting to Griffin and the muggles that the only thing standing between them and power are the sixteen remaining Nazis and skinheads in their ranks. If they take the bait, the result will be more internal strife in the BNP and White Nationalist circles world-wide. Mission accomplished.
I dream of the day when our movement is mature enough that such suggestions by our enemies do not pass the laugh test. Until then, I guess we can hope that our enemies will simply die laughing at us.
18 comments
Great analysis.
According to this “institute” the men who fought for so long should at first to stop being who they really are and next just go to let others allegedly win the elections using their ideas and their merit.
Only I wouldn’t laugh at all. Such hypocrisy and bold lies are disgusting and enraging.
Yes, let’s cut our genitals like the old theological Origen in the hope that ZOG and the white liberals will accept us, as WN eunuchs, in the spheres of power. This nonsense reminds me my sardonic paraphrase of Larry Auster in one of my blog’s latest entries:
Mainstreamers argue as follows: “Solution X may be what we need to do for our survival, but the support for X does not exist, therefore Solution X is not a good idea and I disagree with it (cf. for the Nth time Matt Parrot’s article “Why I’m Joining the SPLC”).
This is to argue backward, in a way that is very common among conservatives, and shows a failure to grasp the radical nature of the challenge before us. Obviously, any kind of solution to suicidal liberalism and the Jewish problem that is favored by serious Western patriots will be completely outside current accepted thinking. Therefore any solution offered by white nationalists is going to lack current support and seem completely out of the question—by current standards. Mainstreamers imagine that the solution they seek could be arrived by castrating us. That is false. It is mainstream liberalism and current conservatism—the belief that all people and cultures are basically the same and that discrimination against and exclusion of any group or person are the greatest sins—that is leading us to our destruction.
Therefore it is the current conservative/liberal worldview that must be challenged and defeated. For mainstreamers to say, “Solution X is no good, because the liberal orthodoxy would refuse to support it,” is to give up the battle without having even tried to fight it. What Western patriots need to grasp is that Western survival requires and assumes the defeat of current conservatism/liberalism. Those who are not prepared to challenge it on a fundamental level will not be able to save the West.
Thus any policy that the participants in this discussion favor—ranging from designating Judaism as a political ideology and placing legal restrictions on it, to initiating Jew out-migration, to the quarantine of Jews within Israel or Madagascar, to the more radical and violent steps that Westerner and others have proposed—all these policies assume that the West will have gone beyond its current liberalism/conservatism. The defeat of it is the assumed starting point of all our proposed solutions. Therefore its end should not be seen as some distant, impossible goal, but as the indispensable condition of our survival.
To believe in the West and in our own life as Westerners, is to believe in the defeat of liberalism/conservatism. Those who are unwilling to challenge liberalism may offer a lot of lip service about defending the West, but they will eventually yield to its destruction. So how do we get from here to Solution X? Not by saying, “There’s no support for it.” Not by saying, “We have to wait for liberals to change.” Not by saying, “Let’s spend the next 20 years telling people that ZOG is a mortal threat to our civilization, but never telling them what they can do in order save themselves from this threat.”
No. We get to Solution X by making our case, our WHOLE CASE, including the diagnosis (ZOG & liberalism are a mortal threat to us) and the possible cure (my own preferred cure is the removal, disempowerment, and permanent quarantine of Judaism; others have their preferred cures and we should continue discussing them). By making our WHOLE CASE, we persuade people (1) of the nature of the problem, (2) of the only possible solutions to the problem, and (3) of the fact that these solutions are not possible within liberal assumptions, because liberalism is a suicidal ideology, and therefore we must renounce liberalism.
It’s the WHOLE CASE that will persuade people and move them to the position that will make Western survival possible. Not a quarter case, not a half case.
This paragraph is singularly important:
Greg Johnson wrote:
In reply, if memory serves, the BNP came out of the National Front, and the skinheads were a response to a subCulture that had systematically isolated them, neutralized them, gelded them, and left them to die cold, lonley deaths in the land their Ancestors created.
In short, they were totally dispossessed.
It is only logical that skilled agents provocatuer would perform a handful of actions desgined to marginalize them in the media at all times, and at all costs.
Britain declared war on Men, and Britain, today, reaps the consequences.
The irony, that (Patriarchal!) Islam is successfully occupying and conquering the Sceptered Isle by simply ignoring the Mommy State is a stunning refutation to the Destroyer-controlled social engineers.
As churches throughout England become mosques, can the day be far away where the last words of the English national anthem end with the phrase, “Inshallah.”
No.
We can work steadily to provide a foundation to stop this damn kinder, gentler, gelding process, starting where we are.
The idea of an all-White Homeland, a Northwest Republic, seems to be an excellent place to start.
We can learn from this.
“Their ranks have thinned recently” — No pun intended, I am sure! (Wallace and Rome both being tubby eunuchs.)
As I understand it, your analysis is that the UK version of the SPLC is recommending that the BNP embark upon a new round of “mainstreaming” which will pit party members against one another, wasting energy and stoking enmity.
If you are right about this–and it seems reasonable to me–then by extension, “mainstreaming” is precisely what the SPLC would recommend to WNs in the US to create dissension and drama. And this is exactly what the recently retired “Hunter Wallace” did for the better part of last year on Occidental Dissent.
So why not draw the obvious conclusion: Wallace’s 2008 claims to be working for the SPLC were not just insane delusions, but were truths unloosed during a rare moment of candor, perhaps influenced by the cocktail of psychotropic drugs he was gobbling at the time?
Obviously we can never know anything for sure, given that we are dealing with a pathological liar and lunatic. But it sure seems plausible to me.
You make a persuasive case, but my gut tells me that Wallace is not a conscious enemy agent, just a crazy person who does evil for free because that’s the kind of thing he feeds on.
Greg,
Could you consider, with Matt Parrot’s approval of course, republishing at C-C the article which was removed from Parrot’s site, “Why I’m Joining the SPLC”?
I quoted it recently in the commentariat section. But obviously we need the hilarious images…
Chechar,
Matt took it down as part of a negotiated truce with “Wallace,” so I think it would not be appropriate to reprint it here.
I won’t stop you from linking to it, however.
Greg
Thank you for this — the finest analysis yet of an article that has been discussed at many traditionalist sites, but nowhere better than here.
I particularly appreciate this paragraph, which explained something to me that I never understood till now:
I used to always speak of “cultural preservation,” and set as our ultimate goal the saving of “Western culture,” but then I found myself astonished to have people asking me if I supported race replacement. My reaction was, “Good god no; how could you even think that?” And I still don’t comprehend how being concerned about culture holds open “the possibility of cultural assimilation to people of all races,” when for me (and in this I take my lead from Spengler), race and culture are the same thing.
You don’t have Western culture without a Western racial soul. A Beethoven is only possible among Teutons. Kill the race, and you kill the culture. To me, cultural preservation and racial preservation are the same thing; you neither have a culture without a race, nor a race without a culture. The race must be pure enough to be receptive to its own culture, while a race without a culture is essentially lobotomized (although at least if it is still relatively racially pure, it always has the chance of rediscovering its forgotten culture).
But I now see that there is, in these discussions, a strange and to me incomprehensible distinction between culture and race, so I’ve taken to using to specifying “racial soul.” It still seems redundant, though.
Chechar and other posters are touching upon what Robert Whitaker (http://www.whitakeronline.org/ and http://www.nationalsalvation.net) has been telling the WN community for years: “respectable conservatives” are just as much our enemies as liberals and multi-cultists (to be fair, William Luther Pierce and Revilo Oliver said this also just not as explicitly and clearly). Whitaker points out that “respectable conservatives” do the liberals’ jobs FOR them, by not only failing to violate any taboos set forth, but to actually REINFORCE them. Thus, a neocon (or even a Republican before the uber-Zionist ZOGsters took them over) will always blame black failure on liberal policy or the welfare state. Heavens, no– the answer cannot be that blacks are genetically unfit for modern society. If they said that, they wouldn’t be “respectable” anymore.
Seeking respectability is a fool’s game beyond a certain point. The Wehrmacht had the best uniforms, by far, of any military organization known to man. Westerners should be celebrating this and should be still using these beautiful adornments. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is about one trillion dollars’ worth of brainwashing that is associated with the Third Reich.
WN must be careful not to cede territory or talking points, but they also have to realize that certain words or phrases are “trip wires” that have been set nearly in stone by trillions of dollars’ worth of mental programming over decades. So, avoid talking about the virtues of the Nazis to potential converts or voters, even though they comported themselves better than the Allied ZOGsters. Avoid talking about what you REALLY want done in America. Stay on a consistent message and let the momentum bring everything else into place.
What do we want? The end of White genocide. How do we get it? Teaching people that anti-racism is CODE WORD for anti-White. Very simple, but it’s a clever maneuver that subtly shows people that the entire scheme is anti-White. It’s not anti-racism, it’s not multiculturalism, it’s not globalism, it’s ANTI-WHITE. Most people unconsciously grasp this but are afraid to say it. Lead the way and tell them, loudly and proudly.
The enemies of our race have overplayed their hand. The conditioning went too far and the pendulum is swinging back our way. You can see the evidence for this by reading comments on yahoo or CNN. Any article with a hint of race in it is machine-gunned with race-realist comments. And no, I do not think these are all BUGSers at all. What you are seeing is the real opinions of many Americans who have resisted brainwashing, figured out the scheme as anti-White and nonsensical, and are now free to voice their opinion without the residence PC officer shrieking at them– on the anonymous Internet.
Sit tight, stay on a consistent message, watch with glee as Israel is sold out at the last minute in WW3 which will start as a flash point in the Middle East, and prepare yourself to be the ideological leader that will pick up the pieces and rebuild when the dust settles. For now, plant the seeds.
Africa for the Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everybody. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White. It’s not a Mexican problem, nobody is flooding Mexico with millions of non-Mexicans and trying to make a blended humanity in Mexico. It’s a White problem. It only happens in White countries, it only affects White children. It is White genocide. Are you pro-White-genocide? Can you justify White genocide?
PS Google “White Genocide Evidence Project” and provide some evidence for the project
What is a BUGSer?
In reply to Puma:
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/
Bob Whitaker’s Underground Graduate Seminar
Another reason for which we can not laugh anymore.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:027:0039:01:EN:HTML
EU Commission decision regarding the transfer of personal data toward Israel. Meaning I guess they can know anything about anybody in EU, when they want, any time.
Lo! Quite predictably, the Searchlight study brought “Hunter Wallace,” a.k.a. “John Pelham” out of retirement to repeat his mainstreamer talking points for the fifty-thousandth time: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/03/a-resurgence-of-an-assertive-english-nationalism/#comment-28566
It is no coincidence that the wisdom of the Searchlight Institute so perfectly meshes with the wisdom of Hunter Wallace and his ilk, whose vanity and insecurity make it child’s play for the Searchlight crowd to manipulate and goad them into new rounds of their divisive, destructive posturing.
When you are fishers of boobs, you use boob bait.
One could let the mainstreamers go on their merry way, whilst the vanguardists busy themselves with much more vital metapolitical projects.
When there is a fork in the road, take it!
I see BNP-style mainstreaming as an attempt to win mass support for nationalist ideas. No nationalist faction, mainstream or non-mainstream, will ever attain state power through revolution or any other means without the support of a mass movement, and without state power nothing will ever change; William Pierce repeatedly made this point in his 1970 NA prospectus. I am no expert on the history of the BNP, but I am pretty sure they didn’t begin winning seats (state power) until after they mainstreamed. The problem is that every concession to the mainstream takes you further and further from advocating for a solution that will solve the problem at a fundamental level. And if you mainstream enough, you will eventually be absorbed so deeply into the mainstream you reach a point where you are not only not advocating for a fundamental solution you become part of the problem. It’s an insoluable quandary.
@ “It’s an insoluable quandary.”
Only for the moment. I believe that Trainspotter, Johnson and MacDonald got it right: for the moment we in the trenches can only, by means of providential patience, spread the metapolitical ideas—awaiting for the breakthrough when whites will be more receptive to a potentially revolutionary message (which requires much greater social problems than are yet present).
Let’s iterate a metaphor. The apparent failure of the American nationalist movement is not the fault of the vanguardists, as OD has claimed for more than a year. It’s basically due to the primordial stage of the movement (well: strictly speaking, it’s not a movement yet). Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, white nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of whites wake up and work together—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns to plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be initiated at the core—whether a vanguardist revolution or a legal pro-white election—and the new star of white nationalism will be born in the Occidental heavens.
Bok globules look like a placental stage previous to actual existence of the baby star. What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravity, increasingly more spiraling mass (see linked image), without which no revolution or pro-white election is possible?
Basically, the MSM matrix, led often by Jews. But when whites approach reaching minority status, what MacDonald calls surviving strategies of an ethnic group will probably start to emerge among whites.
By then we will have a narrow window of opportunity to attract the masses to our gravitational field—or die as a failed, “maroon” star (e.g., like Jupiter).
Chechar made several excellent points. I would like to comment on one of them.
Chechar wrote:
In reply:
The foundation of a Movement is a CAUSE, and we need to have both an above-ground organization – VNNF’s “Hugh” and his “A World View” thread – and underground, hard-core cadre that focuses solely on The Cause.
The best identification I can use for The Cause is the Fourteen Words, and the Ideal that a Northwest Republic represents as the most advanced temporal manifestation of the metapolitical project.
The hard-core cadre seems to be on the verge of developing as more and more White Men understand that “replace and displace” means their jobs – their livelihoods, the foundation of the Identity as Men – are gone, and now, gone for good.
Uncle Adolph’s NSDAP Solution – leading to the foundation of National Socialism – developed over more than a decade of working to build a Solution to the social and economic problems of a defeated Nation.
The Northwest Republic will require no less of an effort.
We can learn from this.
” Compromise is a fool’s accelerator.”. Colin Jordan
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment